517
63% of workers unable to pay a $500 emergency expense, survey finds. How employers may help change that (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/news@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

We don't have good WAGE data before 1964

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_%28red,_in_constant_2017_dollars%29.png

but we also have household income data for earlier years

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html

but it doesn't match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)

but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    You made a claim about 1950s income you now can't back up? Interesting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html

    Look at it, family income was lower

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, because women generally didn't work. That's a terrible metric.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    But that's the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.

    Look at ANY metric of "having money or stuff" and people today are better off

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent